Lawless

‘Sharia’ is a much more abstract concept than ideologues—whether Mideast Islamists or Newt Gingrich—suggest

With a recent CNN poll showing that 68 percent of Americans oppose the plan to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, close to Ground Zero, it is difficult not to conclude that Americans have begun to take a referendum, not necessarily on their Muslim neighbors, but more generally on what they see as the problems posed by Islam to U.S. liberal democracy. In Washington, Newt Gingrich put a name to it in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute when he identified the problem as “sharia,” or what is commonly translated as Islamic law.

Stealthy jihadis and violent ones, said Gingrich, are “both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of sharia.” After quoting the Gettysburg Address, Gingrich concluded, “I would argue that the victory of sharia would clearly mean the end of the government Lincoln was describing.”

You’d think the party of Lincoln was made of stronger stuff, but many on the right have taken up the former Georgia congressman’s call to arms. Gingrich, wrote Andrew McCarthy on National Review Online, “has crystallized the essence of our national-security challenge. Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on sharia?”

By making sharia the focus of his fulminations, Gingrich has taken an almost hopelessly abstract concept and weighted it with an existential presence that it has never had in 1,400 years of Muslim history. Sharia is not a concrete legal code; it is the idealized notion of God’s law. Because there is no way to approach what is ostensibly divine except through human agency, sharia as such does not exist except as interpreted by human beings over the long course of Islamic history. The word “sharia” necessarily means many things to many people. Even though Islam is very simple in its basics, including conversion—you are a Muslim if you testify there is no God but God and Muhummad is the messenger of God—the faith comes with a fabulously esoteric scholarly tradition.

The access that Muslims have to sharia is through jurisprudence, or fiqh al-sharia, the comprehension of sharia. In Muslim history there were at least six major Sunni schools of law, with only four remaining (Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i); in Shia Islam there are two major approaches, usuli, based on deriving principles, and akhbari, a scripturalist posture that believes all answers are already written down in the Quran and the sayings of the Shiite saints.

Of course, there is also difference of opinion as to the relevant texts. Except for the Quran, Sunnis and Shiites typically disagree about everything. As for the hadith, or sayings of the prophet, the Sunnis believe the relevant hadith are those of the prophet and his companions, the sahaba; for the Shia, the meaningful hadith are those of the prophet as well as the imams who followed him. To produce fiqh, the Shia also have aql, or intellect, whereas the Sunnis go by the principle of qiyas, or reasoning by analogy, and also ijma, or consensus.

It is doubtful that Islam’s scholastic legal apparatus is what the former House speaker was referring to when he said that sharia “is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth.” Among other things, he is referring to the notoriously vicious corporal punishments associated with so-called Islamic law as exercised in many Muslim-majority countries. Known as the huddud, these punishments, like stoning and lashing for adulterers, beheading for murderers, and so on, are most famously meted out by Islamist outfits like the Taliban in Afghanistan and also by the terror-propagating Pashtun militia’s two senior state-sponsors, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. There is little doubt that both these countries have had a hand in terrorism, including spectacular operations directed against the United States, like the Sept. 11 attacks. But unless Washington intends to make war on them, rather than putting Islamabad on the dole and selling Riyadh 84 advanced F-15s, as it is planning to do, it is counterproductive to associate sharia with our enemy.

Gingrich is also referring to how Muslims tend to perceive of non-Muslims and the fact that Muslim societies have historically treated non-Muslims as second-class citizens, with the status of protected peoples, or dhimmis. While this principle obviously runs against the grain of American culture, it is hard to see how it possibly threatens non-Muslim U.S. citizens, or even American Muslims of the Shiite sect who, since they are considered heretics by the Sunnis, have usually suffered worse fates than Christians and Jews in Sunni-majority lands. When Gingrich argues that “radical Islamists want to impose Sharia on all of us,” I can’t imagine how he sees that happening, short of the largest land invasion in human history of foreign Muslim soldiers, administrators, and religious scholars with the connivance of millions of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and pagan American collaborators. And look out, Mitt Romney and the Mormons!

The stealth scenario is slightly less preposterous—jihadis insinuating their way through our legal and political systems to slowly Islamize a credulous U.S. public degree by degree—but many times more repugnant. It is necessarily premised on the idea of a United States that has lost all faith and confidence in its own values and an intellectual and political elite too stupid to tell the difference between our founding principles and Islamic obscurantism. In this scenario, the same nation that came out of its Civil War a more perfect union is now just a few headscarves and beards away from becoming a Taliban backwater.

If to Gingrich sharia stands for everything wrong with Islam, Muslims associate it with all that is best about Islam—justice, accountability, the rule of law, and even democracy. That is to say, it’s a highly idealized version of reality that has little basis in fact. For most Muslims (moderate and non-moderate alike), sharia is a catchall phrase for legal principles that have rarely, if ever, existed in actual Muslim societies, where the law of the land is not God’s but the ruler’s. It is not abstract notions of “sharia” but the actual application of the ahkam al-sultaniyya, or laws of the ruler, that have shaped the reality of most Muslim societies over the last millennium.

The notion that something called “sharia” was widely imposed throughout the lands of Islam is an Orientalist fantasy. If Gingrich’s Orientalism—sharia represents an all-encompassing totalitarian force—is of the negative variety, positive Orientalism asserts that Muslim societies were just and well-administered until Napoleon’s 1798 invasion of Egypt and the colonial legacy that ensued. The driving force behind this positive Orientalism is none other than the Islamist movement. For instance, the Islamists reasoned that the Arabs lost the 1967 war with Israel because they no longer practiced the true religion. Islam had taken a wrong turn somewhere, and Muslim societies needed to return to the essentials of the faith as practiced by the prophet of Islam and the righteous forebears, al-salaf. Those who adopted such ahistorical beliefs are known as salafists, whose ranks include a broad spectrum of Islamists including the Muslim Brotherhood. In the hands of the Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna, sharia was another wedge used to divide Muslim populations from the ruling regimes. In time, the regimes adapted so that today the Egyptian constitution names sharia as its principle source of legislation, and the new Iraqi constitution cites it as a fundamental source; but this is essentially window-dressing to placate pious Muslims and ward off the Islamists.

The Islamists are hardly more specific about what sharia means. When Banna spoke of sharia to the Egyptian masses, he meant something similar to the empty Western left-wing mantra of “social justice.” In any case, the Islamist definition of sharia is something very different from the thousand-year-old enterprise that had devoted its scholarly energies to discerning how to understand and implement, if possible, God’s revealed word. Aside from notable exceptions like Youssef al-Qaradawi, almost none of the notables even vaguely affiliated with the Islamist movement are scholars. What they know about sharia is only slightly more than what Newt Gingrich thinks he knows about it.

It is surpassingly strange that a concept revived by Islamists as a political tool may now be serving a similar purpose in the United States, where sharia is no more likely to affect the American way of life than the burial rituals of the ancient Egyptians are likely to influence our funerary rites. When the organizer behind the lower Manhattan Islamic center, Imam Feisal Rauf, says that the U.S. legal system is “sharia-compliant,” he is not preparing the way for a regime of lashings and beheadings; he is engaging in a species of inter-Muslim apologetics—which are also pro-American, even if in a roundabout way.

There is no comparing the Islamic sharia and the U.S. Constitution. The idealized notion of God’s law as derived from the Quran and hadith does not guarantee freedom of religious belief, or freedom of expression, including blasphemy, as the United States does in practice. The same is true for concepts like freedom of association and political rights, including the right to form political parties. Americans have long enjoyed freedoms that many Muslims, including the Islamists, say they have aspired to for more than a thousand years. To claim that Muslim societies—in their idealized form—also promote the freedoms that Americans really enjoy is not a threat to the U.S. Constitution but a relatively shame-free way of engaging a subject that is embarrassing to a society extremely sensitive to shame.

But what’s more embarrassing is that the political leaders of a free country imagine that our freedoms are threatened, not by real men with real weapons who are supported by states that claim to be our allies, but by a scare word whose real-world applications are obscure to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at letters@tabletmag.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

I think that when Gingrich saw a problem with Islam as it may affect U.S. liberal democracy, he was not using the term sharia in of itself as posing that threat. As Lee Smith points out, there are many interpretations of Islamic law, just as there are different practices in other religions. What those who are pointing to the dangers posed by Islam, are the Muslims who see as their goal the ultimate worldwide domination of Islam in a Caliphate that has as its basis the rule of sharia as they interpret it. An analogy to this could be the actions of the Inquisition by the Catholic Church and its relationship to the New Testament.
With a spiritual vacuum enveloping western civilization, the Islamicists hope to fill that void with their own beliefs. In certain parts of Europe they are beginning to meet with some success. Even in the U.S. there are those who are attempting to push the envelope and replace our constitutional rights with their own credo based on the sharia. We regularly read about such occurrences. Smith would do well not to minimize the threats that radical Islam poses on our way of life.

Michael Nutkiewiczsays:

August 18, 2010 - 11:30 am

Sharia and Halacha (Jewish law) share some common traits and similiar challenges. They both must navigate between tradition (the sacred old order) and accomodation (the technological, scientific, social and political changes). Those who adjudicate sharia/halacha feel that tension and both legal systems express the full spectrum of interpretations: extreme conservatives to extreme liberals. The adjudicators of the U.S. Constitution face the same tension: e.g., the debate between “original intent” vs. constructive change. The author is correct that sharia trumps universal human rights. The situation is the same in halacha. This does not mean that these traditions do not have a notion of human rights. They do. But they are circumscribed, and adjudicators in both traditions decide when these values are to be applied in particular cases.

Eve Rowell, MDsays:

August 18, 2010 - 11:37 am

This article uses ridicule and hyperbole, as well as obscurantism rather than information to make its point. In other words, the article is a political and ideological polemic.

First the author states that Sharia is not a concrete legal code. I’m sure that would be of interest to all the women who have been stoned to death based upon this un-concrete legal code.

Then the author attempts to denigrate the knowledge of Sharia of anyone who is opposed to efforts that are currently being made in the US to change laws and customs for the express comfort of Muslims. He argues it is an esoteric code that practically nobody except esoteric scholars, apparently like himself, is qualified to understand.

The author by his own admission fails to understand the concern on the part of Americans about Muslim organizations in the US. For example there is the Muslim American Society. It was founded in 1992 for the purpose of promoting “Islam as a total way of life.” Like the Muslim Brotherhood, it wishes to see the United States governed by sharia, or Islamic law. Given that the author does not understand or “can’t imagine” why this is of concern to Americans, what is the point of his article? Why write an article about something you do not understand?

Instead of advancing dialogue between Americans who are intelligent but disagree in their attitudes towards Sharia law, this kind of article creates ever more divisiveness and vindictiveness in our culture. This divisiveness seems to have mushroomed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil.

If Muslims or non-Muslims who advocate for Sharia law want to make a case for Sharia law to Americans, this kind of article is not the way to do it. The author indicates by his contempt for concerned Americans the derisive attitudes that Islamist individuals have for the West.

sharon gordonsays:

August 18, 2010 - 12:03 pm

Honor killings are taking place in Europe, Canada and the US. I would like to see more about what is being done to prevent this – as it barely hits the news.
We have a constitution that was created by rational people, based on rational principles. Religion is irrational – based on made up fantasy’s created by men for power and control. Notice that in every religion, women are considered second class citizens – this also has to do with power and control. Unfortunately, this belief has invaded our society and has only recently been slightly mitigated. But with the newly found power of the religious Christian right in this country – we are slowly going backwards.
So yes, as a women, I fear sharia, and I fear religious fundamentalism of all kinds, be it Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

Alan Hoffmansays:

August 18, 2010 - 12:35 pm

Comparisons of Jewish Halacha to Islamic Sharia are often misused and misunderstood. Halacha itself stipulates the priniciple of “Malchut Dina
Malchut” – that in exile, outside of Israel, the law of the land is law
(at least where it has nothing to do with Jewish Law per see). Sharia has
no such self-correction.

Normative Judaism understands the difference between full “rights” in its own
home nation, Israel, and of those in the “exile” among the nations. Since
Judaism has no proselytizing, forced conversion or imperialistic drives based on religion, it makes these distinctions easy. Sharia includes Dar-al-Islam and
Dar-al-Harab indicating all outside nations from Islam are the “Land of War”
and subject to Jihad, forced conversion, etc. That is an important difference.

Halacha does not even claim Jews are entitled to equal rights in exile nations, though it lauds such political developments. Sharia indicates that Islamic
rights (some of which do affect non-Muslims) have supreme rights if not sole
rights. I would overturn womens rights, minority rights, religious rights and
voting rights.

To imply there is no ideological conflict between Islam and Democracy, or a
similar ideology with Jewish Halacha is to be unlearned and superficial in
making religious comparisons.

rose trippsays:

August 18, 2010 - 12:56 pm

when in America obey American laws. If you don’t want to than stay away.

Natan Derwisesays:

August 18, 2010 - 1:10 pm

The author of this article barely hides his contempt to those who oppose the creeping Islamization of the free society, be they informed or not. No “sophisticated” parsing of the meaning of Sharia can conceal the fundamental premise that Islam is an all encompasing totalitarian ideology of which the religion is a small part only. It is an existential threat to all freedom loving people, including the author residing in Dar el Harb. Newt Gingrich should be commended for raising the awarness to this threat.

Joshuasays:

August 18, 2010 - 1:55 pm

You guys are funny. You were ready to run through a brick wall for Lee Smith a few weeks ago, but now you want to lynch him.

Charlessays:

August 18, 2010 - 2:25 pm

@Joshua,

Agreed. Just a few weeks ago, ignorant trolls harassed Lee as an Islamophobe, neocon, Arab hater when he rightly called out bastions of anti-Semitism. Now, commenters who likely agreed with his position regarding Walt, Greenwald, and the others are slamming him as uninformed and polemical, which once again, is not the case.

Never before had I thought of suggesting that the American Constitution and/or Bill of Rights might be a useful way to present America and its values to the Muslim world. The US does a great job criticizing itself in the international sphere and exporting mindless films and television shows (which, despite their immorality, etc. make more money outside the US than domestically), yet throughout most of the world we don’t have the same determination to export the very things we claim to value the most.

Bosays:

August 18, 2010 - 3:26 pm

The problem is that even though Newt is using an overly simplistic and incorrect interpretation of Sharia, the mere fact that he uses a word that is foreign to American ears, and Lee Smith uses a well-thought-out but highly-complex explanation of Sharia that even the responders to his column appear to have trouble understanding means that Newt wins and Lee loses.

Americans like simple explanations.

hiramosays:

August 18, 2010 - 3:32 pm

I love it when the readers are smarter than the writer.

Mariansays:

August 18, 2010 - 3:39 pm

I am more afraid of the American version of Sharia than anything Newt can dream
up. Every year, Louisiana law becomes more and more restrictive on
women’s rights in this state. I don’t see where replacing ultra-conservative
Christians with ultra-conservative Muslims would be any different.

Carlsays:

August 18, 2010 - 5:29 pm

This article is very misleading at best, while it resounds with philosophical explanation of Sharia it doesnt address the issue of Americam Muslim calls for a Muslim “Sharia” Court to decide Muslim issues such as divorce property settlement complaints against other Muslims … … these calls have been repeated across the US advocated by Imams and oppesed by Muslim women. These Islamic courts often use the principals set forth in the Koran that prohibit women from objecting to settlement that are unfavorable to them and are often viewed as discriminatory towards women. If American law is “Sharia Compliant” then why are there calls for a seperate justice system that would be applied to Muslims only that does not meet American standards of justice?

Barbarasays:

August 18, 2010 - 5:55 pm

Alan Hoffman: Thank you for your intelligent and knowledgable comments.

But what’s more embarrassing is that the political leaders of a free country imagine that our freedoms are threatened, not by real men with real weapons who are supported by states that claim to be our allies, but by a scare word whose real-world applications are obscure to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Right, our rights aren’t threatened by sharia… except, you know, where sharia law has actually been used to take away people’s rights, such as in Canadian divorce proceedings. And it’s not like there are honor killings in Britain, or some nuts flew planes into the WTC or something.

These stupid insinuations that only weaklings need to defend their country’s principles aren’t convincing anyone. The cowards here are the ones who want to pretend the threat doesn’t exist in pursuit of some unattainable multi-culti utopia.

Bob G.says:

August 18, 2010 - 6:10 pm

Oh, BS.

How do you separate the theory of Sharia from the stoning of women, death penalty for homosexuals, and honor killings?

We, who are not blessed with great intellects, nor with degrees from elite schools, have to evaluate issues and situations on the evidence. There is plenty of evidence as to where Sharia law takes a society. You don’t have to focus on Iran, or other full-blown Theocracies, to find the evidence.

The author of this article barely hides his contempt to those who oppose the creeping Islamization of the free society,

It’s very difficult to avoid the appearance of contempt when discussing the contemptible. The idea that 3% of the US population (half of them prison converts) are going to impose some version of “totalitarian Sharia” on the remaining 97% is pretty darn contemptibly dumb. The fact that significant sectors of the rightwing, and countless enraged talkradio types and e-mail list recipients are shaking in their boots and wetting their pants over Sharia (or what they think they know about it) in the U.S. is exactly what Smith says it is: embarrassing.

As is most of the rest of the “anti-mosque” movement.

Leonard Feinsays:

August 18, 2010 - 7:01 pm

Carl:

I may be mistaken, but my impression is that the calls for “Sharia Compliant” adjustments all stipulate that the separate justice system would be available only with the consent of the litigants. In that sense, it is not all that different from the more adventuresome Batei Din around the country. Here in Boston, for example, the Beth Din intervened in a very public way in a slum landlord case — the landlord was an Orthodox Jew and agreed to the proceedings, which took a full year to unfold. It dealt as well with selective conscientious objection and with the kashrut of food additives, and came up with rulings that people were free to accept or reject.

More important: Have we any data at all on the proportion of Muslim Americans who would favor the establishment of Sharia courts?

Robertsays:

August 18, 2010 - 7:11 pm

I agree with Newt…..”When in Rome do as the Romans”…..”When in America do……..”……a free people are free when they act consistant with their nature and that nature is defined by their laws. We are a Judeo Christian country (wheather you like it or not)who wrote a constitution that unpacked that faith and its idea for community life. Live here and live in that system or find a place that will fit your desire….there are plenty of countries that will have you….

If you do not believe that Sharia law is a threat to this country I urge you to visit those communities in Europe who are now having huge problems because of Sharia law. Our Declaration of Independence and constitution clearly refute anything resembling Sharia law. We are a country UNITED, not DIVIDED. The progressives seek to divide this country into voting blocks for their political advantage and educated Americans recognize the danger of this. Anyone who respects and understands what our founding fathers fought for would not ignorantly defend this bigoted law. It is oppressive, sexist, and has no place in this country of freedom. Educate yourself.

Cara Csays:

August 18, 2010 - 7:37 pm

In which countries ruled by Sharia law of any sort are the people free, and non-Muslims and women treated as equals? Um, none. Some are more horrific than others, but all are oppressive. Islam demands submission, not liberty.

Sharia law IS being imposed here through stealth means. There is a strong Shariah banking movement. Christianity is under constant attack. And anyone following the case of Rifqa Bary saw a 17-year-old girl almost returned to her Islamic parents who had threatened to kill her for apostasy.

Ronsays:

August 18, 2010 - 7:50 pm

Islam owes us an insurmountable debt. They need to gain our good graces. This is the only time I can recall the defenders of this mosque fiasco coming to defend a religion. I really think a lot of the defenders should look at a beheading video and then get back to us. I don’t care about being fair to Islam. They seem to create a world of trouble.When they root out their scum , repent and denounce violence and work to redeem the horrible things done in the name of their religion, they might be on the way to better relations. A lot of people are still very angry about the attacks on our soil.

Lynnsays:

August 18, 2010 - 8:14 pm

The author may have difficulty understanding this, but what’s even more difficult for me is seeing other women stripped of their most basic rights over and over and over again by advocates for Shariah – and in countries and areas that were ONCE relatively free, like Iran, Iraq, Aceh prov., Pakistan, Afghanistan (at least in parts thereof where women were once surgeons and teachers – and in RECENT memory) & now parts of the CAUCUSES. Can anyone think of any other category of persons who have seen such violent erosions of their rights in so many places by an identifiable doctrine? And then to have guys like this author minimize and even ridicule those concerns is really frustrating. . . . Now, if I saw ANY recognition by our elites of the degree of intimidation and violence that must often be brought to bear in these communities to maintain those “islamic” standards, it wouldn’t be so troubling. What I see instead is an increasing willingness to accommodate “group” rights and the rights of “religions” – really “A” religion (though that religion just happens to operate like a state in a number of countries, completely with fascistic morality police whose primary charge is arresting and harassing WOMEN). In light of all this it’s truly frightening when someone like the Bishop of Canterbury talks about how accommodation is “inevitable” to preserve “community cohesion”. The only thing that’s inevitable is that any such accommodation will come at the expense of women and girls who apparently no longer merit the equal protection of the law.

Anyway, here are some articles that further illustrate some of these trends:

“I may be mistaken, but my impression is that the calls for “Sharia Compliant” adjustments all stipulate that the separate justice system would be available only with the consent of the litigants. In that sense, it is not all that different from the more adventuresome Batei Din around the country.”

Personally, I think access to voluntary courts shoud be limited to voluntary religions.

Steve Ssays:

August 18, 2010 - 9:19 pm

Blasphemy is punishable by death under Sharia. Apostasy is punishable by death under Sharia. Homosexuality is punishable by death under Sharia. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for having the temerity as an infidel to attempt to explain Sharia. Salman Rushdie continues to live under the threat of assassination for having made a bit of sport of Sharia. Comedy Central refused to run an episode of South Park because it included Mohammed. People were killed as Muslims world-wide rioted over the Danish cartoons, even though the cartoons were already six months old by then. 3,000 people died on 9/11.

But us dumb hicks don’t understand the finer points of Sharia, he states. Yet if confronted with the above, which he so studiously ignored in his diatribe, he will claim that these incidents are not Sharia. No? But their proponents claimed it was, and they were raised to it. Who then is the fool, Mr. Lee? You don’t get to cherry-pick your data.

Lynnsays:

August 18, 2010 - 9:26 pm

The author may have difficulty understanding this, but what’s even more difficult for me is seeing other women stripped of their most basic rights over and over and over again by advocates for Shariah – and in countries and areas that were ONCE relatively free, like Iran, Iraq, Aceh prov., Pakistan, Afghanistan (at least in parts thereof where women were once surgeons and teachers – and in RECENT memory) & now parts of the CAUCUSES. Can anyone think of any other category of persons who have seen such violent erosions of their rights in so many places by an identifiable doctrine? And then to have guys like this author minimize and even ridicule those concerns is really frustrating. . . . Now, if I saw ANY recognition by our elites of the degree of intimidation and violence that must often be brought to bear in these communities to maintain those “islamic” standards, it wouldn’t be so troubling. What I see instead is an increasing willingness to accommodate “group” rights and the rights of “religions” – really “A” religion (though that religion just happens to operate like a state in a number of countries, completely with fascistic morality police whose primary charge is arresting and harassing WOMEN). In light of all this it’s truly frightening when someone like the Bishop of Canterbury talks about how accommodation is “inevitable” to preserve “community cohesion”. The only thing that’s inevitable is that any such accommodation will come at the expense of women and girls who apparently no longer merit the equal protection of the law.

Joseph Smithsays:

August 18, 2010 - 9:57 pm

I can honestly say I’ve never read anything so pretentious in my life. You can call it whatever you want, and you can argue till your mother calls you to dinner, but the fact is when Muslims reach a certain percentage of the population of the country they are currently invading, be it Norway, Germany, France or America, they begin to demand the right to make and enforce the laws that effect their subpopulation. It is a reality. Stoning to death, cutting off limbs – not exactly enlightened.

mike shapirosays:

August 18, 2010 - 9:58 pm

I will disagree with Alan Hoffman on one thing. One only has to look at the havoc that the Haredi are wreaking in Israel to see the damage that Halacha, as practiced by a small minority (and yes, in Israel the Haredi are a small, if verbal, minority) can do to a democracy. So, on that basis, there is a valid comparison.

OTOH, Halacha has never been applied to non-Jews and would not be used to determine the “lifestyle” of non-Jews living in Israel. That is decidedly not the case in countries ruled by Moslems, particularly if their religious leaders (Suni, Shia, or any other) are providing a major influence in the justice system. Try to buy alcohol in Saudi Arabia. Non Kosher McDonalds are readily available in Israel (not commenting on whether I’d eat one, just on availability.)

As for creeping Islamism, one only needs to look at England, where a number of jurisdictions are now “advising” police not to dress or do anything that might violate the sensibility of the Islamic population. Forget English common law and rules.

I’m afraid that Mr. Smith is living in a dream world. By the way, while I’m normally not a fan of Newt Gingrich (somehow the level of ethics and morality that exists in a man who would have divorce papers served on a wife who was in the hospital is minimal, at best), he seems to have a much better grasp of conditions in Cordoba in the “Golden Age of Tolerance” than does Mr. Smith.

Joseph Smithsays:

August 18, 2010 - 10:19 pm

Two other points: First, we are not a “liberal democracy” as the author claims, but a representative republic. There is a huge difference between the two. The author’s apparent wishful thinking on this point makes the rest of his piece suspect. Second, yes, we are a free people and free to practice religion as we see fit. However, that freedom is not unlimited. When any group, including a religious one, has as a purpose the overthrow of our way of life or nation, we have every right to oppose it and the government to sanction it. The so-called right wing understands that.

Rod Dowdensays:

August 18, 2010 - 11:32 pm

Ah, yes one more diversion tactic. This not the real issue. would we even be having
this discussion if the media and our elected officials we upholding their sworn oath to uphold “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

And By the way, This COUNTRY WAS founded by intelligent and GOD fearing Americans.
Any one who thinks different can not read or have not read any of our founding documents.

Shariah Law just like the Spanish inquisition are the doings of men, not GOD
or religion.

When government take over religion, disaster occurs.

Our real issue is the lack “COURAGE TO BE FREE.”

Jonathan Ushersays:

August 18, 2010 - 11:39 pm

This is nonsense. Sharia law is the law applied in Muslim countries. In theory, from an ivory tower, it might be hard to categorize it but in practice it is easy. It is the law applied in Muslim countries. English common law is similarly different in many countries but it is the law of England and former British colonies including the United States. It is obvious that Muslims can dominate countries by having more babies than the native population and by immigration. It is being successfully done in many European countries now. Islamism, jihad adn sharia law are a serious threat to the U.S. Congratualtions to Gingrich for recognizing it before we all become dimmnis

This is such a fantastic piece of high-brow propaganda to beat the proles over the head with that I’m really impressed. Ah the sleights of hand were fun to spot!
For example : When Gingrich argues that “radical Islamists want to impose Sharia on all of us,” I can’t imagine how he sees that happening, short of the largest land invasion in human history of foreign Muslim soldiers, administrators, and religious scholars with the connivance of millions of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and pagan American collaborators

So Mr Smith quotes what Mr Gingrich has claimed but does not refute it, but merely argues logistics! Oh, sir, do they want to impose Sharia or not?

And among all your self-congratulatory masturbation over “sophistication” is it or is it not a fact that whatever the nuances among variant theological schools of Islamic law (both Shia and Sunni) that blasphemy is to be punished with death, that adultery carries extremely stringent penalties, that rape victims need 4 witnesses to clear themselves?

What kind of faux-intellectual wankery are you engaging by not even mentioning these things or even TRYING to refute them?

The fortunate part, Mr. Smith, is that Americans are not stupid. They see the state of Islamic societies around the world, hear and read the words of Muslim spokesmen, and see videos of Prime time Arab television (thank you Internet!) discussing the nuanced notions of holocaust denial.

You, sir are either a huge fraud, or an ignoramus far far worse than Newt Gingrich whose simplistic language on this issue has far more accuracy than your undeserved snobbery.

Apparently Mr Smith is so block-headed that the wide uniformity of the legal code in Islamic societies (which they themselves profess to base on Sharia law) does not negate his point about abstraction!

Oh and such hopelessly abstract concepts as specified by (as Mr. Smith himself notes) 4 schools of Sunni sharia and 2 schools for Shias! So abstract, my my.

“Reliance of the Traveler” or Umdat al-Salik also does not exist! And don’t worry Americans, Al-Azhar university, respected as the foremost center for learning for Sunni Islam endorses Umdat Al-salik means nothing either! Its all just such hopelessly abstract stuff. Like what? Like this:
“A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that ‘retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.’ However, ‘not subject to retaliation’ is ‘a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.’ (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).”

Is Mr Lee Smith an ignoramus or a deceptive deconstructionist?

irumatsays:

August 19, 2010 - 3:56 am

Lee Smith, you’ve done well this time. The comments on this article are exactly what you describe. Bravo!

The hopeless simpleton Islamists and their Tea Party/GOP brethren deserve each other.

Halbstarkesays:

August 19, 2010 - 5:41 am

I think that since actions speak louder than words, maybe Newt Gingrich’s thought is about responsibility in a free society. After all It was several Sharia law abiding citizens from some middle-eastern religious communities who hi-jacked and flew planes filled with innocent hostages into buildings in a country not their own. Hmm, I have not seen too many US Supreme court wannabe’s do anything like that yet in my lifetime. From where I stand Sharia law sucks and does not appeal to me. But what do I know? I have yet to be brainwashed to the point of blowing myself up in my culture and laws. (sarcasm) For all of the seldom often thinkers.

Jon Garfunkelsays:

August 19, 2010 - 7:34 am

Do all of you critics have the depth of experience in reporting about the Islamic world as Lee Smith? Any of you understand Arabic?
Are any of you familiar with his work?
To think that he is some apologist for Islam would be a surprise to any of this regular readers.

I have one acute criticism of the article, this throwaway line here: “the empty Western left-wing mantra of ‘social justice.'” — what is wrong with the notion of social justice that it is branded an empty mantra?

BillHsays:

August 19, 2010 - 10:37 am

Wow, of all the opinion pieces, and articles concerning the Ground Zero Mosque, and the dialog that the issue stimulated, this article is the worse. Tell the poor woman in Iran who is sentenced to death by stoning that her death is only theoretical. Also it might be good to mention it to the nine women & two men who were executed that way a year or two ago in that country. They only think they are dead. They must be lousy theologians.
Oh while you’re at it reassure Israel that all that “obliterate” talk is just talk.

caboosesays:

August 19, 2010 - 11:18 am

Can you believe we have people here who want to pontificate about the horrible torture of water boarding.
can you imagine any torture more hideous than being stoned to death? can you imagine the unendurable pain of being pummeled with sharp rocks over a period of time? I don’t know how long it takes to kill a person by stoning, but i imagine that those who really enjoy seeing a person suffer could stretch it out over several hours.
i once read of a person being burned to death by the spanish inquisition who lived for 18 hours while in the fire.

why is it that so many self-righteous people who profess to be religious can support and apparently enjoy torturing other people?

one important thing was said in these posts–America is a representative republic, not a democracy. in a Republic, the majority rules, but the rights of minorities are protected.

the people of America, through elected representatives, have granted protection for more rights, and for more groups and minorities, than any country in the history of the world.

now, we have an active movement trying to take those rights away.
LONG LIVE AMERICA

Lynnsays:

August 19, 2010 - 11:49 am

Here’s my working understanding of the “nebulous concept” – kind of non-muslim’s guide to “Reliance of the Traveler.”

At a minimum:

1. If I proseytise openly for my non-muslim religion, I’ll be arrested/deported.
2. If I’m too open and flagrant in my non-muslim religious practice I’ll be arrested/deported – at least in most M.E. countries (I suspect they’re a bit easier going in Indonesia).
3. If I want to build a non-muslim house of worship, the permits will take decades to approve and it probably won’t happen.
4. If I stand on a street corner and say Mohammad was a jackass and it’s stupid to construct a society around the words of 7th century war lord, I’ll be arrested.
5. If I convince a muslim of #4 and he says so out loud, we’ll both be arrested.
6. If I kiss a boyfriend we’ll both be arrested.
7. If I marry a muslim my husband may have up to three other wives (In Indonesia he apparently needs my permission to do this but muslim clerics are working REALLY HARD to change that in accordance with SHARIAH). If I don’t like this, he will probably divorce me through some extremely simple procedure and the kids will automatically go to him – at least after a certain age, but he’ll probably just keep them, refuse to give me access, and I probably won’t have much recourse.

*While I have framed this understanding in terms of offical responses, the primary method of enforcing shariah seems to be through community and inter-familial violence, so if the gov. doesn’t get me someone else probably will.

This is my impression of what things are like in a shariah “lite” areas with moderating features. In a country actually GOVERNED by shariah, I’m also looking at forced veiling, strict gender aparteid, no access to high public office, death for apostates/open gays, triple talaq divorce, virtually no redress through the courts against ANY muslim and some form of male guardianship that will severely limit my freedom – including my ability to simply LEAVE THE HOUSE.

Joseph Smithsays:

August 19, 2010 - 12:36 pm

Call it sharia, pretend it doesn’t actually exist, but…

8/19/10: Saudi Judge Considers Paralysis Punishment

CAIRO (AP) – A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man’s spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, local newspapers reported on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia enforces strict Islamic law and occasionally metes out punishments based on the ancient legal code of an eye-for-an-eye.

The reports said Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed after a fight more than two years ago and asked a judge to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law.

Ronnie: your aricle is well reasoned and quite comprehensive. May I add some
things:
–Since there is no clergy, or more acccurately no hierarchy in Islam, anyone–
as you have contended– may aregue for what he or she thinks is Sh’aria. It’s
one of the reasons there are such a multiplicity of fatwas.
— It is most unfortunate that a sunni muslim, Ismail Farrooqi, who spent his
life trying to present the humane and–dare I say, rational–aspects of Islam
was killed ( along with his family), in the early 1970’s. His voice is sorely
missed.
–The position you’ve expressed, argued by the Salafists, that all went wrong
after the Napoleonic invasions (by what some Muslims call ‘the Farangi’ or
Franks) can be found in Bernard Lewis’ ” What Went Wrong–whom despite his with the
the Neo Cons–has a profound knowledge of Islam in its world wide culture.

–As you’ve suggested,0ne of the problems with Sh’aria is not simply its content,
but that after the 10th century A.D. ” the door of itjadad” (pardon my spelling)
, or the door of interpretation has been closed. And so only the traditional
law interpretations are considered valid. This is Irjad Manjii’s argument
with islam.

yahudiesays:

August 19, 2010 - 5:04 pm

A fine bit of academic hair-splitting and equivocation. It’s like saying Stalinism isn’t so bad – after all it didn’t implement the vision of Karl Marx completely but only “aspired” to it.

Gingrich and other critics of Islam,as idealized in Sharia, are precisely concerned – as we all should be – by the “concept revived by Islamists as a political tool”. If the author had versed himself in current Muslim rhetoric in the US and elsewhere, by various “clerics” of all Islamic sects, he would see the “Sharia Plan” in action: Burrow from within and use the West’s misapplied “principles” to ensure that “Islam is the solution”.

Your line of argumentation is basically similar to those who said that Jihad in Islam can mean a religious war just as well as internal struggle. The Jihad of Islamists is real and does not leave much space for misinterpretation. It’s the academic discourse on the subject that’s vague and abstract and has no practical value.

Basically what makes Sharia a sharia are Islamic courts and in this sense Sharia is a direct challenge to democracy. While it’s true that every Muslim has its own version of Sharia, it’s not hard to see that where it’s practiced, Sharia tends to be applied in a rather conservative manner. And there is some inconsistency in how you first argue that Sharia does not actually exist and then mention Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Finally, while it’s true that some people go completely overboard with their alarmism against Islamic encroachment, people should not be that naive to confuse a lip service paid by a Muslim cleric to the “Sharia compliant” US legal system with the reality. Usually when Muslim communities in the West ask for recognition of Sharia courts, they are not asking for making the legal system Sharia compliant. They are demanding a parallel system, a state within a state, and they are not doing this with expectations that their Sharia courts would then start vigorously imitating the workings of Western legal system

“Abstract” in Smith’s case seems to indicate “Shariah” can mean anything to anybody.

Unfortunately, as other posters have pointed out, that’s not really true . Plenty of Middle Eastern countries have decided they can encode Shariah into their legal systems, and where it’s done, it’s a far cry from the jurisprudence practiced in our Western, Judeo-Christian based societies.

I dare say the “social justice” practiced in the West, while religion-based, is far more amenable and fair to most people (except maybe violent, sex-crazed, lunatic misogynists) than would be Shariah.

I really don’t know what Smith’s point is. Islam, practiced in some reformed mode, might be a beautiful religious experience, given it’s call to the one God, and submissiveness to Him.

That is not the Islam we see in too much of the world, as plenty of other posters have pointed out. I appreciate Mr. Smith’s efforts, but until the governments and religious leaders in majority Islamic countries decide the time has come for a reformation, we’re faced with the twin evils of the creeping of Shariah into our Western legal systems, as well as the violent jihad practiced by the terror wings of the Islamists.

“….I have one acute criticism of the article, this throwaway line here: “the empty Western left-wing mantra of ’social justice.’” — what is wrong with the notion of social justice that it is branded an empty mantra?….”

What does “social justice” MEAN? How is it different from “justice”? Tell me that and I’ll believe it’s not an empty mantra. To you, anyway. But from the “progressives” I’ve observed up close, it’s just a verbal fist-bump to identify other members of the clique, or a label to stick on anything they want to do so they feel righteous and superior about it.

Evansays:

August 19, 2010 - 11:16 pm

Did you all even read this article? Do you not get that there is no such thing as Capital-S “Sharia” law? Sharia is a concept not that different from our concept of “jurisprudence.” Sure, it’s often jurisprudence qua the Quran and other Islamic texts, but there’s no agreement in the Islamic world as to what texts are even canonical or even whether or not any given ruling to stone or lash someone fulfills lower-case-s sharia.

Think of any court case in American history that you find the rulings in detestable. Dred Scott? Roe v. Wade? Take your pick. You’re going to condemn our entire American legal system based on some miscarriages of justice? Because that’s essentially the philosophy you’re taking to lowercase-s “sharia” law.

Jeffsays:

August 20, 2010 - 12:08 am

there are apparently 32 flavors of Islam so whenever someone points at some behavior people say, The vast majority of Muslims don’t believe that … the problem is nobody know what the vast majority DO believe … not this author not Newt not me …

I do know that the founder of Islam was a bloodthirsty warlord with a taste for pre-teen girls … in my book Islam started out with 2 1/2 strikes and its followers behavior over the last 1,400 years has not improved their standing …

Dahirsays:

August 20, 2010 - 12:41 am

To Sharon Gordon, in a discussion about Islam and Sharia you bring up the topic of honour killings. This is interesting, for honour killing has nothing to with with Religion, Islam or Sharia. Its a man made custom/tradition practiced in some south eastern countries.

To Alan Hoff; you state “Halacha does not even claim Jews are entitled to equal rights in exile nations..Sharia indicates that Islamic
rights (some of which do affect non-Muslims) have supreme rights if not sole rights”

That is incorrect. Islamic law asks Muslims to accept the laws of the land where they are residing in, if its a non-Muslim country. And if they cannot do this, to leave that country. Its only in Muslim countries that Islamic law has supreme rights, not in non-Muslim countries where Muslims are ‘guests;.

I agree with much of what the writer (Smith) writes in the article. Many Muslims consider Mr Smith unfriendly to Islam, but his article is extremely interesting and not far from the truth.

All systems of law and ethics (sharia, halakha, constitutional) operate on two planes: the ideal / philosophical, and the literal / policy. The former is more just, more Divine; the latter is mean to be more empathic, more human.

These systems need to grapple with the fact that some adherents will take the philosophy and put it into practice, and some will regard the practicable as mere philosophy. The bane of our age is that most spiritual leaders and judges can’t agree on which is which, and so it is little surprise that their minions can’t either. I’d posit that Islam has a particularly contagious case of fundamentalism.

In any event, this lack of clarity between how we’d like to see the world and how we must live in the world (with others) is the source of most global strife.

It turns out that literature and journalism suffer similarly. Some readers find it uncomfortable when a thoughtful writer gets practical, and some find it tough when a politically-savvy writer gets philosophical. Some want contemplative direction, others prefer meditating on information. But many cannot tell which is being offered and when.

Sometimes, this is the fault of the writer. Sometimes, it is the problem of the reader.

Now, to tell the difference…

T1Britsays:

August 20, 2010 - 7:10 am

Oh what a lying article.

The dissembler ties himself in knots to weave a complex deception.

But the fact of Sharia as it exists is plain for all to see.

Eve Rowell put it perfectly above.

Joseph Smithsays:

August 20, 2010 - 8:10 am

This whole thread is funny. On one hand, you have a group of realists who see a scorpion in their pantry and want to crush it in order to protect themselves and their families. On the other hand, you have a group of apologists who are telling us that not only is it not a scorpion we see, but even though they are well documented, scorpions aren’t real to begin with. They’re telling us we created scorpions and they exist only in our minds, so we’re to trust the apologists and send our children into that pantry to get their box of cereal.

John Rantasays:

August 21, 2010 - 7:09 pm

There are two problems with Gingrich’s battle against Muslims and Shariah law. The first is that there is no threat of Shariah being imposed here in the US – none, nada, zilch. Muslims are the most disempowered group in the US, more despised than even atheists, gays and Mormons. They have no power, they constitute a tiny voting bloc, and they have no influence. Gingrich knows there is no real threat of Islamic law ever being imposed here in the US. He also knows that his base gets fired up by this kind of demagoguery, and by ranting thusly he’s raising his odds of success in the 2012 primaries.

In addition, I find it odd that no one seems bothered by the very real and growing “Christian Shariah” threat. Mike Huckaby, Sarah Palin, James Dobson and Mr. Neo-Christian, (now that he’s running for President) Newt Gingrich, are all clamoring to see “America place (the Christian) God at his rightful place at the head of our society and our government”. They want to see their own conservative Christian definition of marriage ensconced in the Constitution. They’d like to see the 10 Commandments enshrined on the walls of public buildings and public classrooms. They’ve been pushing their Christian fundamentalist agenda for the past 20 years, and making frightening inroads into secular society.

This is not a debate between people who support secular, constitutional law and people who wish to impose Islamic law on the US. This is a crusade by the Christian right against an imagined threat (Shariah). The Christian right fears that their religion’s position of dominance in our society might be under siege. As an atheist I find the Christian right’s arguments to be ludicrous, and hypocritical. Newt Gingrich et al are the Christian pot calling the Shariah kettle black…

Fnordsays:

August 22, 2010 - 4:11 pm

Seriously, you guys are screaming about an ancient code of law,that has pretty little to do with modern islam, outside Saudia and parts of Iran. Go to Indonesia for a different example.

“im afraid of the joos,they have halachic law!”

get a grip

Genesays:

August 23, 2010 - 10:33 pm

John Ranta says: “there is no threat of Shariah being imposed here in the US – none, nada, zilch. Muslims are the most disempowered group in the US”
Weren’t these exact words said about Nazi party in Germany in 1922?

VinceP1974says:

August 24, 2010 - 6:13 am

This idea of imposing Sharia on Non Muslim lands is a great way to separate out those Muslims who are a risk to the civil society , and those whom are not.

Especially if you consider violent jihad as a subset of sharia adherence (even when adhered to illegitimately as in the case of Al Qaeda launching wars in the absence of a Caliph)

So those Muslims who seek Sharia outside of their Islamic domain are the problem… and those oppose who it are the solution.

Unfortunatley this article truly misses the point. It is not even the imposition of Sharia on society, it is the mindset that believes that Sharia is the ultimate in human expression of rights and dignity that is of concern. It is also the progressive notion that all religions in thought and deed are the same, so all should be allowed and welcomed. Within the context of our own society even freedom of religion has its limits, you cannot abuse your children, smoke illegal substaces, commit pedophilia, hack off another’s limb, stone an adulterer, murder someone because of their sexual orientation nor place a special tax on a nonbeliever, just because your religion tells you its ok. There is nothing wrong with a real discussion of Sharia, what it is , its meaning and its purpose. How those who wish to destroy you think, is an important aspect of being able to retain your democratic values.The progressive notion that this is not a clash of civilizations goes against reality.Give me Ayan Hirsi Ali any day over this dribble. It is as if the author is the proverbial onion with his head in the ground.

Also for the author to discount the Moslem Brotherhood, the forerunner fo al-Queda as a blip in the spectrum of Arab society is not only inane its totally devoid of any sense of modern Arab history.Al-Banna was and his descendents are, a threat to democratic society. The Moslem Brotherhood is many things, a mere abstraction is not one of them. They are a real threat to the stability of the Middle East and they always have been.Would the author also make excuses for the neo-nazis movement, or extreme left-wing anti-semites in Europe? I think not. Just because some ideologies are based on politics without religion and Sharia is based upon a religious ideology doesn’t mean that they are all not equally as dangerous.

Genesays:

August 24, 2010 - 9:33 am

The author has missed few important points. First of all Lee put all religions in one hat, claiming that belonging to a congregation and performing rituals represents the most essential component for the followers of all religions. This could be true for the majority of American Christians and reform Jews but not for Muslims. Second,the author definitely underestimates the power of word by claiming “what’s more embarrassing is that the political leaders of a free country imagine that our freedoms are threatened, not by real men with real weapons … but by a scare word …” Obviously author does not realize that before real men would take real weapons they should be convinced that they indeed need them. Just look, as an example, at Germany. Look at those joyful exuberant faces of Germans meeting Hitler on the streets of Berlin and you should ask yourself: how did it happen that the nation which gave to the world Goethe and Beethoven also gave crematoriums and death camps? If a crazy demagogue was able to convince people to take up the weapons to impose the “new order” why do you doubt that some imam or ayatollah won’t be able to do the same thing to the half-illiterate population? What they need are just the weapons which they don’t have at the moment but may have in the future. And third. Author misses the point that this half-illiterate population is coming and settling in the USA in alarming numbers, similar to the ones it happened in Europe few years ago. You don’t want to repeat European experience, do you?

This is possibly the most pointless article in the history of articles. I’m sure that Gingrich is taking his definition of “Sharia” from the definition that today’s Islamic leaders use. Language changes over time, and the definition of Sharia law has changed. Furthermore, Gingrich isn’t the one who changed it.

For example the term “Democrat” used to mean the party whose main platform was support for a direct form of democracy. Who would argue that this moniker has changed today? This article is the equivalent of attempting to argue against today’s Democrat policies, such as gay rights, by stating that direct democracy has never existed in America.

The author is, of course, trying to cloud the issue, to turn the modern-day definition of Sharia law into some gray, nebulous “it,” because it is the only avenue open to attack Gingrich’s point. The only way to oppose something that is demonstrably true is by undermining and obliterating definitions of words, without providing alternatives.

Modern-day Sharia law, as defined by various Imams all over the world, (whether you choose to accept the moniker or not), consists of: women as chattel; sanctioned domestic violence; honor killings; homosexuality as punishable by death; sanctioned marital rape; etc.

All of these dreadful things are called, collectively, by the people most qualified to define the term, “Sharia law.” If that has little resemblance to the original definition of the term, then provide another term.

This a foolish artical!Lee Smith complelely ignores the real world evidence of sharia in action(no matter which “school”it is). Please look at what is happening in Ache province of Indonesia( yes, the same place where millions of western charitable donations went from Christian pockets) where strict sharia law is being forced upon the people at the point of death! Or look at Maylasia where western singers/musicians have cancelled tours under threat of violence.Like a cancer Islam starts small and inocent looking but as it grows it becomes deadly and will kill its host(western society)!

ChrisLAsays:

August 27, 2010 - 10:27 am

Once again, we have an apologist for Islam attempting to deny an integral part of the ideology, a part that has been preserved and handed down from one generation to another for over 1,000 years. If Islam is based on the Quran, ahadith, the actions of Muhammad, and Sharia Law, then why don’t the apologists just admit that and defend those institutions? The honest truth is that much of those institutions are indefensible vis-a-vis 21 century values regarding morality and human rights. Islam must change, and the sooner the better.

The author has not missed the point at all. The Neoconservative hysterics who have come here to scare away any thinking conservatives are the ones missing the point. They haven’t even read the article.

New Gingrich as the Author rightly points out, is the inventor of this Sharia hysteria. His intent is to continue support for pre-emptive war in the Middle East and to restore neoconservative ranks in the Republican party. Period.

His other intent is to frame the debate such that any alternative republican view (such as Ron Paul’s) will be shunned. He does not want to see fiscal conservatives and libertarian types to reach Washington.

I agree with the author fully, but he is wrong to state that “The idealized notion of God’s law as derived from the Quran and hadith does not guarantee freedom of religious belief, or freedom of expression, including blasphemy, as the United States does in practice.”

Religious freedom is absolutely a central tenet of Islam and Islamic law. The principles of Islamic law (“maqasid al-Shari’ah) include the protection of religious freedom. This is also expressed in the Qur’anic edict, “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). Interpretations of Shariah which to do not follow this edict cannot be said to be Islamic.

This edict is also completely in keeping with a secular state, which is why secular states often appear to be more shariah-compliant than so-called Islamic states, which was Imam’s point, I believe.
Peace…

As mohammad said, “The greatest deed a moslim can do for islam is to kill and be killed fighting for allah.” That’s out of the hadiths and that IS the essence of islam — murder. A quick review of history over the last 1400 years shows that THAT is exactly what moslims do — or just take the last 10 years if you’re pressed for time.

The goal of islam is the conquest of the world by force and by stealth. “I have had a dream; and allah has given me the keys to all the kingdoms on the face of the earth, and all their treasure,” said good old mo. Yes, let’s not forget their treasure; after all, mohammad was not a man to deny himself a little fun after after slaughtering 700-or-so Jews, as he did in medina, and more in other places. I’ve read two references where historians have roughly estimated that the moslims have murdered 240 million (±) over the last 1400 years. They appear to be real good at it, for a “religion of peace” as the idiot George W Bush tells us they are.

Smith seems to think that Americans still have a modicum of sense left; I wonder how he comes to that conclusion. At least 50% of Americans are brain dead, thanks to the socialist clowns running the American public school systems. Otherwise how could we be blessed with obie in the White House?

As the schools keep pumping out multicultural idiots, the ratio will climb ever higher and America will be lost forever. Thank goodness that we have a commie, moslim-loving treasonous bastard as president — otherwise all would TRULY be lost.

Someone said that barak(q) was the name of the jackass that took mohammad to heaven on his quickie night vacation. Gosh, what a great name; I wish I’d been named that instead of Jerry.

Horth Wellersheimsays:

August 29, 2010 - 7:54 pm

perin says above that…

Religious freedom is absolutely a central tenet of Islam and Islamic law. The principles of Islamic law include the protection of religious freedom.

but the koran says…

Koran 5.73 Disbelievers say, “Surely Allah is the third person of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost.” NO! That is not true. There is no god but Allah, and if the Christians do not stop what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall them. (Gosh, this sure sounds like religious freedom to me — or maybe not.)

also we have…

Koran 5.33 The punishment of those who wage war and tell lies against
Allah and His apostle is this, that they should be MURDERED, or
CRUCIFIED, or THEIR HANDS AND FEET SHOULD BE CUT OFF on
opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. They shall have a
grievous punishment. (Yada yada yada! The very fact that Jews and Christians exist means, to muslums, that they are obviously waging war and telling lies about allah. We can’t win. It’s the old eternal fire and molten lead down the throat for us boys and girls, not to mention splitting our heads in two and putting them back together and doing it again. Oh the joys of ‘religious freedom’ in islam.)

Koran 5.73 Disbelievers say: “Surely Allah is the third person of the
Father, Son, & Holy Ghost.” NO! That is not true. There is no god but
Allah, and if the Christians do not stop what they say, a painful
chastisement shall befall them. (Our Christian skins are going to be burned off eternally, according to the muslums, for what we believe. Hey wait a minute! What happened to religious tolerance and freedom? I don’t think I believe the muslums anymore — not that I ever did;-)

I’m afraid that purim is speaking out of the lower end of his alimentary canal.

I think this article has good intentions but it engages in too much of a semantic game and therefore misses the mark. First off, Lee is correct that sharia has no chance of taking hold in America, either through stealth or occupation. No Muslim nation(s) can defeat America through firepower and occupying America would be impossible. The occupying army would endure so much bloodshed that they would cut their losses and leave. Also, America has nukes. Sharia through stealth seems even less likely in America considering Islam has such a bad reputation and most Christians would not be in favour of voting for an alien legal system that would only benefit 1% of the population and discriminate against the majority. Gingrich is obviously fearmongering and he should be dismissed.

Having said that, sharia may be the ideal but it does exist in most Muslim countries. Yes, it is not perfect and it is true that there is not one Muslim country that has it’s legal system that is 100% in line with Islamic jurisprudence. Part of the reason why that is so is that there are so many different schools of thought and sharia isn’t a unified concept and there is also the fact that the fiqh and tafsir is so exhaustive and arcane that codifying all of it today would be next to impossible.

There are many common themes in the legal systems of most Muslim countries. Family law and finance is pretty much sharia compliant and the differences between most Muslim majority countries on these matters are fairly minor. Women’s rights vary country to country but gay rights are admittedly horrible. The rights of non-Muslims also vary but in no Muslim country can non-Muslims be killed or abused with impunity.

By treating sharia as some esoteric object, Lee isn’t addressing the issue. Are there aspects of sharia that are scary? Yes. Should Americans be concerned about these scary aspects affecting their lives? No, because Americans are too strong and would reject sharia outright.

I truly wanted to post a small comment in order to thank you for the stunning tips you are writing on this website. My prolonged internet lookup has at the end of the day been honored with high-quality tips to share with my neighbours. I would tell you that many of us site visitors are truly fortunate to exist in a remarkable network with very many awesome individuals with helpful methods. I feel rather grateful to have used your entire website page and look forward to some more cool moments reading here. Thank you once again for a lot of things.

Thank you for sharing excellent informations. Your web-site is very cool. I am impressed by the details that youˇ¦ve on this site. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for more articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I found simply the information I already searched all over the place and just could not come across. What an ideal website.

Lee Smith is very ignorant about Islam and Muslims, having lived and studied in Egypt while writing his book about Muslim perceptions of what strength represents. He is extremely naieve about what Islamic Sacred Law, Shari’ah, is and is clueless that the USA Constitution is by law the supreme law of the USA. Our civil and criminal courts are totally different than Islamic courts. Our cultures are totally different; so much so that we live in a permanent clash of civilizations.
Islam is the anthithesis of Judeo-Christianity. Systemic Islamic dogma and doctrine compels Muslims to behave against non Muslims as they have for 1.400 years of impunity.
Check it out yourself and don’t be fooled by dhimwhits, (Dhimmititude).
Lance Silver

Hello,Irrrm a sucker for reading through your blog post, I needed to depart a little comment to compliment you and also wish you with a good continuation. Wishing the finest of luck for all your blogging efforts.

Name (required)Email (required, will not be published)Website (optional)

Message

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.